• State sector employees weigh in on Govt. plans to restrict their use of mobile phones

There is no denying that excessive freedom and the misuse of freedom are issues that could lead to a number of other problems. However, the lack of freedom is a similar issue that could result in various adverse outcomes. This is one concern that the authorities would have to look into if they choose to proceed with the recently discussed need to restrict mobile phone use among public officials during work hours.

In a bid to reduce inefficiency and to improve the services provided by the public sector, the Secretary to the Ministry of Public Administration, Home Affairs, Provincial Councils, and Local Government Neel Bandara Hapuhinna recently said that attention would be paid to taking strict action against public officials who use mobile phones during work hours, particularly to access social media platforms such as Facebook and smartphone-based communication apps such as WhatsApp. As part of these efforts, he added, attention would be paid to issuing a circular on the use of mobile phones during work hours. What is more, adding that employees of certain private institutions are required to refrain from using mobile phones during work hours, he said that he would not hesitate to take similar action if the need arises.

The need for a methodical plan, not a blanket one

In response, public sector trade unions expressed several concerns, adding that they believe the proposed action should not be a decision that affects all public officials. The Sri Lanka Government Officers’ Trade Union Association (SLGOTUA) stated that even though it does not object to action against public officials who use mobile phones unnecessarily during work hours, it would be unacceptable if the Government is planning to restrict mobile phone use in a manner that affects all public officials. If the latter is the case, it added, it would initiate trade union action against the proposal. 

Last week, The Morning quoted SLGOTUA National Organiser Pradeep Basnayake as saying: “According to Hapuhinna, the use of mobile phones by public officials is the main reason for shortcomings in the delivery of public services. That is a total misconception. There are many administrative issues in the public service and the Government is yet to provide solutions to these. Therefore, we would like to ask Hapuhinna to look into and solve such issues instead of attempting to do things that are not practical.” 

In addition, Basnayake said that social media platforms, mobile phones, and smartphone-based communication apps such as WhatsApp are required by most public officials, especially by those who perform field duties. Adding that public officials’ mobile phone use does not have an impact on the delivery of these officials’ services, he questioned as to how the Ministry will differentiate between public officials who use their mobile phones unnecessarily and those who use the same for necessary work. Moreover, he added that it is wrong for public officials to use mobile phones unnecessarily during work hours, and that such should be dealt with by the heads of the relevant institutions on a case-by-case basis.

Public officials’ response

According to several public officials who spoke with The Morning, although there is a pressing need to improve the efficiency of the public sector, it should be done in a manner that encourages public officials, and not through decisions of the aforementioned nature, which they feel are oppressive. They further think that such restrictions should be imposed on a case by case basis, not through blanket regulations which they said may affect even the public officials that fulfil their duties efficiently regardless of their mobile phone use.

“At the end of the day, irrespective of how much time one spends on their mobile phone, all that matters is whether public officials fulfil their duties without wasting time during work hours,” said 40-year-old public official R. Samaraweera (name changed on request). He feels that there is no need for regulations to restrict public officials’ freedom to use mobile phones, which he said is a “basic right” as long as their duties have been fulfilled. He added that if the authorities’ objective is to ensure that public officials do not waste time during work hours, the authorities should choose measures that encourage public officials, not ones that discourage them. 

“I do not think that restricting access to or the use of mobile phones is a good way of ensuring efficiency in the public sector. On the contrary, such measures could decrease efficiency. What the authorities should actually pay attention to is giving public officials more freedom. It is not public officials’ mobile phone use but their work performance that should receive attention. If their work performance is satisfactory and measures are taken to achieve that, there is no need to worry about mobile phones.”

However, some public officials feel that the aforementioned plan is a good one, due mainly to certain public officials’ uncontrollable social media use.

This was explained by 52-year-old public official, Kamali Fernando (name changed on request): “One of the reasons why public officials are seen in today’s society as a community that squanders public money or is excessively rewarded is inefficiency in the public sector. If the public received services efficiently, they would not care about how much is spent on the public sector. It is unfortunate that despite being the most important sector in the country, only a handful of public institutions are considered by the public as efficient service providers. 

“Public officials’ mobile phone use was not a problem before. However, it has worsened to the point where it affects their performance, thereby increasing inefficiency in certain public institutions. Some public officials do not have any control over their mobile phone use, and instead of using it when they are on a break, they make time to use it.” 

Adding that taking steps to control or monitor public officials’ mobile phone use is important, Fernando added that such regulations should not be imposed on all public officials, because this situation is created by only a handful of public officials. Opining that there should be an efficient system to identify public officials that use mobile phones excessively, she said that the proposed regulations should be applicable only to them.

Role of mobile phones in personal, professional lives

Meanwhile, those who spoke with The Morning raised concerns about the role of mobile phones in public officials’ lives in the workplace, and how not having access to mobile phones freely could adversely affect them.

Samaraweera explained: “Mobile phones are a necessity, and they play a crucial role in a number of essential daily activities of any person. When public officials do not have access to such essential equipment, it could affect them psychologically, resulting in stress, which in turn could lead to poor work-related performance. Imagine, if a public official cannot call their child when the child is alone at home or the spouse when they are unwell, check social media profiles to relax when they are stressed, or watch news to learn of what is happening in the country, that is almost as if they are disconnected from the outside world. Public officials are also regular citizens that are as affected by the economic crisis, mental health issues, and high work-related expectations and targets, like any other Sri Lankan.” 

He added that despite the popular notion that public officials have ample time to waste, in reality, many of them are struggling to finish their work within the work hours. In such a context, he said, it is important that they have some freedom to use mobile phones.

Meanwhile, 33-year-old public official Nihal Silva (name changed on request), explained that mobile phones have become an essential part of both their personal and professional lives, and that therefore, having the opportunity to use mobile phones with no restrictions is important. 

“My job involves communicating with different people throughout the day, and in order to do that, I often have to use social media platforms and communication apps, and make video calls. I have an issue as to how the proposed regulations would apply to me. How would the authorities determine if I am using my phone for official purposes or personal purposes?” 

He opined that therefore, if the authorities want to impose a new regulation to control or monitor public officials’ mobile phone use, it should be done in an extremely careful manner. If the same rules apply to both those who use mobile phones for personal purposes and those who use the same for official purposes, he said that such would be unfair. In addition, he raised suspicions as to whether the aforementioned proposal is an attempt to discourage public officials from voicing their opinions, especially those that criticise the Government and the authorities, during office hours. In a context where such attempts were made unofficially during the past few months during the anti-Government movement, which saw the involvement of public officials as well, he added that it would not be surprising if this were the case. He further opined that the authorities opting for steps such as restricting public officials’ mobile phone use – which he said is a rudimentary method despite the fact that there are many internationally recognised methods to increase employees’ efficiency without restricting their freedom – is suspicious.